A lecture by The Nelson Society Chairman Chris Brett on Monday 5 February 7:30 pm – 9:00 pm in Bath

For more details and tickets please  Click Here

In recent years Admiral Lord Nelson’s reputation has come under close examination, in light of Britain’s colonial past and slave trade history. Nelson has been accused of being racist, a white supremacist and pro-slavery. The source of many of these accusations is a private letter, which Nelson penned from his cabin on HMS Victory in June 1805, to a long standing acquaintance on Jamaica, the wealthy plantation owner, Simon Taylor.

In this book Chris Brett examines the evidence behind those claims and reveals how Nelson’s letter was subsequently forged by the West India planters, after Nelson’s death, in an attempt to use Nelson’s posthumous reputation to influence debates on the abolition of the slave trade on 1807. The book also demonstrates how the trap laid by the West India slave traders still influences opinion today and is being used in the current debates about those involved in the Britain’s colonial past.

The fight for his reputation is Nelson’s final battle.

The book is available on Amazon.

What they are saying about ‘Nelson and the Slave Trade’

‘An important work … ground-breaking stuff’

PEREGRINE NELSON HOOD, PRESIDENT OF THE NELSON SOCIETY

‘A critical study that demonstrates that Lord Nelson did not support the slave trade’

ANDREW LAMBERT, LAUGHTON PROFESSOR OF NAVAL HISTORY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR STUDIES, KING’S COLLEGE, AND AUTHOR OF ‘NELSON: BRITANNIA’S GOD OF WAR’

‘A timely contribution .which represents about all we know of its subject at the present time ……A valuable addition to the libraries of Nelson scholars and buffs ….’

DR JOHN SUGDEN, AUTHOR OF ‘NELSON: A DREAM OF GLORY’ AND ‘NELSON: THE SWORD OF ALBION’.

It was announced in today’s Daily Mail  that a letter written by Lord Nelson, to wealthy slave owner Simon Taylor in 1805, had been forged by the anti-abolitionist movement to support its case against the abolition of slavery. That article by Martyn Downer draws on research undertaken in conjunction with The Nelson Society into the matter and its findings are published in the article below.

DECEIT AND DEFAMATION: THE NELSON-TAYLOR LETTER

by

Chris Brett

Introduction

In the Manuscript section of the British Library in London is a little researched collection of nine volumes of ‘pressed copy’ letters (1). These are direct copies of original letters written by Admiral Lord Nelson which form part of a Nelson archive known as the Bridport Papers. There are nearly 1100 letters in the collection and one of them is at the epicentre of the current debate surrounding Nelson’s reputation. That letter was written on board HMS Victory on 10 June 1805 when Nelson was pursuing the French fleet under Admiral Villeneuve, across the Atlantic in the hope of bringing it to battle.

That letter was addressed to Simon Taylor, a wealthy plantation and slave owner on the island of Jamaica, a long standing friend, whom Nelson had met in 1779. A transcript of the letter is reproduced below. The content of this letter is alleged to support claims that Nelson was a racist and pro-slavery (2) but, as this article will demonstrate, the letter was later embellished and tampered with by the anti-abolitionist movement after Nelson’s death, in an attempt to use Nelson’s burgeoning reputation to influence the debates in Parliament on the abolition of the slave trade in 1807.

The Nelson-Taylor Letter

Below is a transcript of the pressed letter (3) contained in the Bridport Papers (original spelling maintained).  The original letter appears to have been lost and consequently this is the earliest extant and true copy of the letter. The Bridport pressed letter is reproduced on paper bearing an 1802 watermark and its authenticity is not in doubt. The letter details Nelson’s actions in seeking to protect the West Indies, and then he re-affirms his commitment to the protection of the colonies. The meaning of comments made in the letter is assessed later below.

“Victory June 10 1805

My Dear Sir

I was in a thousand fears for Jamaica for that is a blow which Bonaparte would be happy to give us, I had no hesitation in forming my judgement, and I flew to the West Indies without any orders, but I think the Ministry cannot be displeased. Information at Barbadoes from St Lucia told us that the enemys squadron had sailed with 5000 troops on May 28^th: and were seen standing to the Southward, therefore Tobago, Trinidad or Grenada was supposed their object, I went to those islands but now I find it was the whole a fabrication for that the enemy did not leave Port Royal till the night of June 5^th on the 6^th were under Dominica, on the 7^th under Guadalope, standing to the North, and supposed either to try and carry Antigua or were trying to escape from me. The Carthegena squadron was at sea but returned on hearing I was close to them, therefore they had no troops on board that would make our Jamaican friends alarmed, when I am satisfied that they are on their return after sending some of the Spanish ships to the Havannah I shall push hard to get off the straits mouth before them and kind providence may some happy day bless my endeavours to serve the Public of which the West India Colonies form so prominent and interesting a part, I ever have been and shall die a firm friend of our present colonial system I was bred as you know in the Good old school and taught to appreciate the value of our West India possessions, and neither in the field or the Senate shall their just rights be infringed whilst I have an arm to fight in their defence or a tongue to launch my voice against the damnable cruel doctrine of Wilberforce and his Hipocritical allies and I hope that my birth in Heaven will be as exalted as his, who would certainly cause the murder of all our friends and fellow subjects in the colonies, however I did not intend to have gone so far but the sentiments are full in my breast and the pen would write them

I shall as soon as I have done with their fleet go to England for a few months and if you have time and inclination I should be very glad to hear from you, we are nearly thirty years acquaintance and am ever my dear Mr Taylor your faithful and obliged friend & servant

Nelson & Bronte

The Revd Dr Scott Rector of St Johns Jamaica is a most staunch friend to Jamaica and I am sorry to find he has lost his living by some new law. The Dr desires his best remembrances and good wishes to you. He is a worthy good man and a very old friend of mine, 

If any of my Jamaica friends are near you I beg to be kindly remembered to them”

Overview

At the time that Nelson wrote this letter, he was being publicly attacked for neglecting the interests of the West Indies and possibly laying them open to attacks by the French, hence his pursuit of the French fleet. The letter was aimed, in part, to allay public fears in the West Indies on this point.

This letter is carefully worded (4). The first part of the letter, which deals with naval matters, is couched in Nelson’s usual vainglorious terms: ‘trying to escape from me’ and ‘on hearing I was close to them’. In the second part of the letter Nelson affirms his support for the colonial system. He does not expressly support slavery. In writing this letter Nelson would have been aware of the rising tide of abolitionist feelings and would have been cognisant of proposals to retain the colonies whilst reforming the system of slavery to provide rights to enslaved peoples, and of his own support for one such proposal, by Lieutenant Layman RN (see below Interpretation and Understanding the Letter, and Note 15). In addition, he asserts his defence of the ‘just rights’ of the West India possessions. Those ‘just rights’ would be circumscribed by law, and Nelson would be duty bound to protect those rights. A more detailed analysis of the content of the letter is set out below.

The Intervention of the Anti-Abolitionists

As noted earlier, the original letter appears to have been lost (or destroyed). However, shortly after Nelson’s death, a doctored copy of the letter (not in Nelson’s handwriting) was in circulation. That copy letter, which is now in the possession of the National Museum of the Royal Navy in Portsmouth (NMRN), has a fabricated Nelson and Bronte signature and portrait seal, presumably for public display. It is reproduced on paper watermarked 1798. The NMRN copy letter is reproduced in Appendix 1. 

The handwriting of the Bridport pressed letter and this copy is obviously different. The NMRN copy of Nelson’s letter differs in several subtle but none the less significant ways from the Bridport pressed copy. Indeed some 25 or so changes and additions to the letter can be detected, some of them seemingly minor ‘editorial’ changes although other changes appear designed to influence the reader’s interpretation of Nelson’s views. For example in the Bridport letter Nelson states he was ‘in a thousand fears’ for Jamaica. The NMRN copy changes the word ‘fears’ to ‘cares’. At first sight this does not seem important, but it has the effect of making Nelson’s concern seem more personal, the implication being that if Jamaica were important to Nelson then it should be to the politicians and public at large. Another example of the embellishment of the letter can be found where Nelson states he would not see the ‘just rights’ of the West India possessions infringed. In the NMRN doctored copy of the letter this is changed to ‘interests’, an amendment which clearly widens the scope of issues to be defended.

  In the Bridport pressed letter, Nelson refers to the ‘damnable cruel doctrine’ of Wilberforce. In a letter of October 1802, Taylor had graphically described to Nelson events that had occurred in French Saint-Domingue (now Haiti) in which not only white people but also enslaved people were ‘butchered, massacred and murdered’. If this, as a consequence of Wilberforce’s doctrine, led to the ‘murder of all our friends and fellow subjects’ in the British colonies, Nelson would indeed have seen this as cruel. The sentiment hints strongly at sympathy for all people in the colonies including enslaved people as well as the colonists and free people of colour. The anti-abolitionists, on the other hand, saw the end of the slave trade as disastrous to their interests and hence the change from ‘damnable cruel doctrine’ to ‘damnable and cursed doctrine’ in the doctored letter, a phrase embodying more than just a hint of bitterness.

  A final significant change is that Nelson signs off the Bridport letter as ‘Your faithful and obliged friend and servant’. This is amended in the NMRN copy to ‘Your faithful obliged servant’. The removal of the word ‘friend’ has the effect of making the letter seem less a sharing of private views between friends, and rather one written for a wider audience.

A substantial addition to the text of the Bridport pressed letter, dated 12 June, appears at the end of the NMRN doctored letter. This reports that the enemy squadrons passed Antigua on 8 June and that ‘Jamaica is safe on which I congratulate you most sincerely’. It is known that Nelson put into St John’s, Antigua on 12 June, but given that the enemy fleet had long passed, there would no longer be any reason for Nelson to confirm to Taylor that Jamaica was safe. The addition of this codicil by the anti-abolitionists, however, creates an impression of the continuing importance of Jamaica in the eyes of Nelson. 

It is likely that all changes to the original letter by the anti-abolitionists were regarded as important, as otherwise they would have produced the original letter (or an accurate copy) without changes. A full transcript of the doctored and embellished copy letter can be found in Appendix 2.

The embellished copy of the original letter was sent to Taylor’s friend, and fierce anti-abolitionist, William Cobbett, for publication in Cobbett’s Political Register (5). Given the content of the version which appeared in the Political Register, it is likely that Cobbett also had sight of the original letter. For example, the Political Register version of the letter retains amendments such as ‘interests’ rather than ‘just rights’ but reverts back to ‘fears’ rather than ‘cares’. It also retains the other amendments identified above, but adds one further significant change. Nelson refers to the West India colonies forming a prominent and interesting part of the ‘Public’. In the Register ‘Public’ is altered to ‘Empire’. The intent is clear. The anti-abolitionists have upped the stakes – any threat to the West Indies is a threat to British Empire.

A copy of the version of the letter printed in the Political Register is reproduced in Appendix 3. Cobbett’s version of the letter excluded one of its prime purposes which was to seek Taylor’s assistance in restoring an ecclesiastical living in Jamaica for the Rev. Alexander Scott, then naval chaplain aboard HMS Victory, and a close friend of Nelson. The embellished copy was further annotated by noting that Scott had been killed at Trafalgar, which proves that the copy was made after news of the Battle reached Jamaica on 28 December 1805, but before it could be confirmed that it was Nelson’s Secretary John Scott, and not his chaplain Alexander Scott, who had been killed.

The timing of events is also significant. The Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade had its first reading in the House of Lords in January 1807. The Bill was passed at its second reading on 5 February 1807 by 100 votes to 34 and was, after a third reading on 10 February, returned to the Commons. On 21 February 1807 Cobbett’s Political Register published the doctored copy of the Nelson-Taylor letter, two days before the Bill was debated in the Commons, presumably in a last-ditch effort to use Nelson’s considerable posthumous reputation to influence the outcome of the vote. A reference was also made to the letter in the Annual Register (6) for February 1807. (However the 1807 Annual Register was not published until 1809 and could not have affected the passage of the Act). Notwithstanding the Bill was approved by the Commons, receiving Royal Assent on 25 March 1807.

There is no doubt that the anti-abolitionists sought to exploit Nelson’s heroic and patriotic reputation to influence the abolition debate. To this end they took a private letter (7) written to a friend and altered the content of that letter in an attempt to make it seem that Nelson was pro-slavery and would have been opposed to the Bill. The meaning of the content of the letter is examined further below.

Subsequent Versions of the Letter

Subsequent versions of the letter appeared in Clarke and M’Arthur’s ‘The Life and Services of Admiral Lord Nelson’, second edition 1840, (it did not feature in the 1809 edition), in Nicolas’ ‘The Dispatches and Letters of Vice Admiral Lord Viscount Nelson’ (first published between 1844 and 1846) and in ‘The Naval Miscellany’ in 1901. As none of these is an accurate transcription of the original letter, they should not be cited in the current debate, although together with the version which appeared in the Political Register they appear to be the only versions that have been available to historians. (See, for example, Christer Petley ‘Lord Nelson and Slavery: Nelson’s Dark Side’ (8)).

A timeline showing the dates of publication and use of various versions of the letter in the progress of the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, and subsequently, is shown in Appendix 4.

Interpreting and Understanding the Letter

To understand the meaning of the letter it is necessary to set it in the context and background within which it was written.

There is no doubt that during the 18^th, 19^th and 20^th centuries Britain was a colonial power and that during the 18^th and early 19^th century particularly the slave trade was an essential component of that colonial system. The West Indies were critical to the Atlantic economy in the 18^th century with sugar central to imports from the Caribbean to Britain during that period, accounting for some 18.5% of British trade from 1758 to 1817 (9). The value of the sugar industry was such that protection of the West Indian colonies was vital to the safeguarding of the British economy and consequently meant the region was under constant threat from other (colonial) powers. Clearly only the Royal Navy could protect the Caribbean island colonies from external threats, the largest and most valuable of which was Jamaica. If the Royal Navy lost command of the seas then the colonies could be lost, as was so critically demonstrated at the loss of Yorktown during the American War of Independence.

During the global Seven Years War (1756-63) the Caribbean became the focus of much naval activity and battles, and ‘the myth of British naval supremacy became a reality’ (10) during this period. The Seven Years War established the Royal Navy as the dominant European naval power and sealed the Navy’s role as the main protector of the Caribbean islands. Without the colonies, Britain did not have the wealth to maintain this and subsequent wars. The naval officer became a role model as the exemplar for Britishness with the virtues of loyalty, honour, liberty, grace and courage (11). This is the ‘old school’ into which a youthful Nelson was introduced. It is inevitable that he would have been inculcated with these values during his years of education in the Navy, having finished his formal education at the age of 12. Indeed, in his own account of his services (his autobiography) Nelson concludes that ‘perseverance in any profession will most probably meet its own reward … I have received all the honours of my profession … and I may say to the reader “go thou and do likewise” ’.

               Nelson clearly placed the old school values at the centre of his being. To these values can be added ‘duty’, even more so after the Admiral Byng affair (12). That duty was the over-riding driving force of Nelson’s career is exemplified in his final signal at the Battle of Trafalgar – ‘England Expects That Every Man Will Do His Duty’. Indeed, amongst his final words, repeated several times were ‘Thank God I have done my duty’. 

The American War of Independence had a serious effect on the West Indian colonists with whom reciprocal trade was significant. The Navy’s role after the war was to enforce the Navigation Acts. Nelson was stationed in the West Indies 1784-87 and strongly upheld the Navigation Acts which prevented trade with North America, whilst other naval officers turned a blind eye, and this put him in direct conflict with the islanders who wished that trade relationship to continue after the war. Nelson’s world view was clearly at odds with that of the islanders and, as he noted in his ‘autobiography’, he put into practice his professional (‘old school’) views: “.… I proved … that a captain of a man-of-war is in duty bound to support all maritime laws, by his admiralty commission alone, without becoming a custom-house officer”. Again this express statement of his philosophy showed he felt duty bound to support the (colonial) system which he was sent to defend, and in which significant resources were expended, reflecting the value of the colonies to Britain’s global power.

              Nelson’s relationship with slave-owning planters in the West Indies was difficult. He complained that he was persecuted by planters and other islanders from one island to another; so “that I could not leave my ship”. He further noted in a letter to William Locker in 1785 (16) that ‘… I am not very popular with the people. They have never visited me, and I have had not a foot in any house since I have been on the Station, and all for doing my duty by being true to the interests of Great Britain’. He did, eventually accept the hospitality offered by some islanders and, of course, married Frances (‘Fanny’) Nisbet nee Woolward, who had close ties to the planters. However, Nelson and Fanny showed no desire to remain part of that group and proceeded to Europe, where Nelson pursued his naval career with full vigour. In addition, whilst in the West Indies, Nelson met and befriended Hercules Ross, a staunch and influential abolitionist, who gave evidence at the parliamentary enquiry which examined the slave trade. Ross, unlike Taylor, was a regular correspondent with Nelson. It is unlikely that such an affectionate relationship could have survived had Nelson held strong pro-slavery sympathies.

              The role of the Navy was to protect Britain’s colonies and Nelson would have known (have been taught) the value of those possessions to the British crown. His comments to Taylor in the letter are therefore fully consistent with his perceived professional role. Seen in this context of a broad naval education and professional ethos, Nelson’s comments about Wilberforce are also hardly surprising. In addition, at that time Wilberforce, whilst promoting the abolition of slavery, stood against improvement of workers’ rights in Britain and supported William Pitt’s proposal for the removal of habeas corpus (13), hence Nelson’s assertion of his hypocrisy.

              The colonies were seen by the establishment as essential to the economic well-being of Britain, and anything that would undermine that interest, the protection of which had been instilled in Nelson in his role as an officer of the Navy, would be seen as a serious threat particularly in time of war – the condition which existed at the time he wrote his letter to Taylor. In short, Nelson saw his role as the protection of the stability of the existing order. 

That slavery and the slave trade underpinned the colonial system would, of course, have been known to Nelson. However that system existed before he was born, existed when he joined the Navy, and existed after his death. It was the context within which he grew up, lived and operated. There is no evidence that Nelson supported (nor particularly opposed) slavery as either an economic, philosophical or social concept: it was a system that existed and was part of the context within which he operated as a professional naval officer. His response when faced with specific issues touching on the subject was generally humane and pragmatic:

• Any West Indian slaves escaping to a Navy ship (including Nelson’s) were signed on, paid and treated the same as other crew members. At the end of their service they were discharged as free men;
• In 1799 Nelson intervened to secure the release of thirty North African slaves being held in Portuguese galleys off Palermo (14);
• In 1802 when it was proposed by Lt Layman that plantation slaves in Trinidad should be replaced by free industrious Chinese labourers, Nelson supported the idea (15);
• In 1803 Nelson rescued the Haitian General, Joseph Chretien, and his servant from the French. They asked if they could serve with Nelson and Nelson recommended that they be paid until they could be discharged and granted passage to Jamaica. The General’s mission was to end slavery, a fact of which Nelson was well aware. The General and his servant were well treated and paid;
• The Nelson family had a free black servant named Price. Nelson said of him that he was ‘as good a man as ever lived’ and he suggested to Emma Hamilton that she invited the elderly Price to live with them, an offer which Price declined.

These are not the actions of someone who was avidly pro-slavery or racist in the modern sense. It was entirely consistent for Nelson to support the colonial system, as an officer of an executive arm of the state – the Royal Navy – with its dependence on the slave trade, but still not be pro-slavery or a ‘white supremacist’ as he has been labelled.

It should be remembered that Nelson authored a substantial number of letters, of which it is estimated that over 7000 have been published or are known about. It is impossible to glean Nelson’s views on slavery from his letters, as it was a subject he rarely touched upon. He was clearly conservative and certainly supported the colonial system, but the evidence suggests that he would have supported that system had it been underpinned by paid rather than slave labour. His disparaging comments about Wilberforce, when seen in the context of a threat to the system in a time of heightened tension in the war with France, are entirely understandable. They should also be interpreted in the light of contemporary opinion. Wilberforce was, though revered today, a frequently divisive and mocked figure regardless of his abolition campaign.

Nelson’s victory at Trafalgar gave the Royal Navy control of the seas. After the abolition of slavery in 1807 the Royal Navy vigorously applied the new law. Nelson, had he lived, would have seen it as his duty to apply the law with his usual force.

Conclusions

The Nelson-Taylor letter penned aboard HMS Victory in June 1805, written privately to a friend, has been used in recent times to denigrate Nelson’s reputation, leading to accusations of Nelson being a racist and pro-slavery, and assaults on representations of the Admiral, for example the defacing of his statue in Norwich. Ironically, however, the original letter was embellished and doctored by the anti-abolitionists in a last-ditch attempt to use Nelson’s posthumous reputation to influence the outcome of the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade. The doctored letter shows some twenty-five changes and additions when compared to the original, and bears a forged seal and ‘Nelson & Bronte’ signature. The letter was further amended for publication in Cobbett’s Political Register in February 1807. Critics who have accused Nelson of being racist and pro-slavery have relied on these manufactured copies of the original letter which, two hundred years later, continues to sway public opinion.

Whilst the letter shows Nelson’s support for the colonial system, which critics have simplistically equated as support for the slave trade which underpinned it, careful analysis shows that Nelson’s support for that system was bred from a long established and over-riding sense of duty rather than any fundamental personal belief. Further, his actions demonstrated a humane and pragmatic approach when directly faced with the issue. The letter confirms Nelson’s concern for the stability of the system, which he saw as being undermined by Wilberforce, particularly at a time of heightened threat in the war with France. The use of the letter and Nelson’s posthumous reputation by the anti-abolitionists was intended to deceive politicians of the day and, more recently, has resulted in the unjustified defamation of Nelson’s character.

NOTES

1. Pressed copies of original letters were obtained by using a specially designed machine to press damp tissue paper on to the original letter, giving a mirror image. This was then reversed so the text could be read through the tissue paper. This impression was then stuck on to light grey paper so that the text could be more clearly read.
2. See, for example, The Eastern Daily Press 22 August 2020 ‘Nelson Statue Vandalism Cost £2400 to Clean Up’.
3. British library reference: Add MS 34959.
4. Dr Colin White describes Nelson as a ‘wonderful wordsmith’ one ‘whose sense is almost always clear’. See ‘Nelson: The New Letters’ (Boydell Press 2005).
5. ‘Cobbett’s Weekly Political Register’ was founded in 1802 by William Cobbett (1763-1835) and was a pre-cursor to Hansard.
6. ‘The Annual Register’ (originally subtitled ‘A view of the History, Politicks and Literature of the Year’) was founded in 1758 under the editorship of Edmund Burke.
7. Dr Colin White points out in ‘Nelson: The New Letters’ (Boydell Press 2005) that “ …. close examination of the British Library’s volumes of pressed copy letters …. and comparison of their contents with those of Nelson’s official letter-books kept by his secretaries, has shown that Nelson had recorded in them material that he regarded as secret, or private” (my emphasis).
8. See Christer Petley ‘Lord Nelson and Slavery: Nelson’s Dark Side’ first published in BBC History Magazine Christmas 2018. Christer Petley is Professor of Atlantic History at the University of Southampton.
9. Seymour Drescher ‘Econoside: British Slavery in the Era of Abolition’ 2nd Edition, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press 2010 p19*
10. NAM Rodger ‘The Command of the Ocean: A Naval History of Britain 1649-1815’ pp 272-290, Penguin in association with the National Maritime Museum 2004*
11. *As 9 and 10 above, quoted in University of Southampton PH.D thesis ‘The Royal Navy in the Caribbean 1756-1815’ by Sian Williams, 2014.
12. Admiral John Byng was court martialled for ‘failing to do his utmost’ to prevent Minorca falling to the French. Admiral Byng was found guilty and executed by firing squad on the quarter deck of HMS Monarch in March 1747. Whatever the merits of the case, a direct consequence of the sentence was to reinforce a naval officer’s need to perform their duty to the utmost.
13. In summary Habeas Corpus is a recourse through law whereby a person can claim unlawful detention to a court and seek that the court determines whether or not the detention is lawful.
14. See, for example, Martyn Downer ‘Nelson’s Lost Jewel’ p76.
15. This proposal was made by Lieutenant Layman, RN in 1802. In 1807 Layman published a pamphlet entitled ‘Outline Plan for the Better Cultivation, Security and Defence of the British West Indies’. In that pamphlet he describes his proposal of 1802 for the ‘cultivation of that island (Trinidad) and the general improvement of the British West Indies’. The proposal, though specific to Trinidad, was intended for general application across the British West Indies.
16. Letter to William Locker 15 January 1785. See ‘Nelson’s Hero’, Victor T Sharman, Pen and Sword 2005.

Appendix 1

The doctored copy of the original letter showing seal and forged signature. (Copyright M Downer).

Appendix 2

NELSON – TAYLOR CORRESPONDENCE

Transcript of the doctored handwritten copy of the letter from Lord Nelson to Mr Simon Taylor of Jamaica dated June 10^th 1805 (Original spelling maintained)

“Victory 10^th June 1805 off Martinique

My Dear Sir 

I was in a thousand cares for Jamaica for that is the blow which Buonaparte would be happy to give us. I had no hesitation in forming my judgement, and have flew to the West Indies without any orders, but I think the Ministry cannot be displeased.

 Information at Barbadoes from St Lucia told us, that the enemys squadron had sailed with 5000 troops on the 20^th May and were seen standing to the Southward, therefore Tobago, Trinidad, or Granada was supposed their object. I went to those  islands, but now find that the whole was a fabrication, for that the enemy did not leave Port  Royal till the night of the 5^th ` June, on the 6^th were under Dominiqua, on  the 7^th under Guadaloupe standing to the Northward, supposed either to try or carry Antigua, or are trying to escape from me. The Carthagena fleet was at sea, but returned on hearing I was close to them; they could have had no troops on board which ought not to make my Jamaica friends alarmed. I am satisfied they are on their return, after sending some of the Spanish ships to the Havanan. I shall push hard to get off the Straights mouth  before them, and Kind Providence may some happy day bless my endeavours to serve the Public of which the West India colonies form so prominent and interesting a part. I have ever been, and shall die a firm friend to our present Colonial system. I was bred as you know in the good old school, and taught to appreciate the value of our West India  possessions, and neither in the field or in the Senate shall their interest be infringed whilst I have an arm to fight in their defence or a tongue to launch my voice against the damnable and cursed doctrine of Wilberforce and his hypocritical allies, and I hope my berth in Heaven will be as exalted as his, who would certainly cause the murder of all our friends and fellow subjects in the colonies; however I did not intend to go so far but the sentiments are full in my heart, and the pen would write them.I shall as soon as I have done with this fleet go to England for a few months. If you have time and inclination, I should be very glad to hear from you we are near of thirty years acquaintance, and as ever 

My dear Mr Taylor

Your faithful obliged servant

Sign  

Nelson and Bronte

NB*

The Rev Dr Scott, Rector of St John’s, Jamaica is a staunch friend of Jamaica. I very sorry to find he has lost his living by some new law. The Doctor desires his best remembrances and good wishes to you; he is a worthy good man, and an old friend of mine. If any of my old Jamaica friends are near you, I beg to be kindly remembered to them. June12th Antigua. The combined squadrons passed Antigua on the 8th, I am after them. Jamaica is safe on which I congratulate you most sincerely.

The above letter was handed over to Doctor Irving by Simon Taylor Esq at Jamaica.

*Killed on board the Victory at Trafalgar Oct 21^st 1805.

Appendix 3

This version of the letter appeared in the Political register on 21 February 1807. This version contains some differences and omissions when compared to the original (pressed copy letter), and the doctored copy.

Appendix 4

The Nelson-Taylor Letter Timeline

10 June 1805 – Letter to Taylor penned by Nelson aboard HMS Victory

21 October 1805 – Death of Nelson at Trafalgar

1806 – ‘Doctored’ copy of letter in circulation (?)

2 Jan 1807 – First reading of the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade (‘the Act’) in the House of Lords                        

5 Feb 1807 –Second reading of the Act in the Lords, passed by 100 votes to 34

10 Feb 1807 – Third reading of the Act in the Lords; bill passed and goes to the Commons

21 Feb 1807 – Amended version of letter appears in Cobbett’s Political Register

23 – 24 Feb – First reading of the Act in the Commons, passed by 283 votes to 16

28 Feb 1807 – Second reading of the Act in the Commons

16 Mar 1807 – Third reading of the Act in the Commons

25 Mar 1807 – Act receives Royal Assent

1 May 1807 – The Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade comes into force

1809 – Reference to letter in footnote to Abolition Act debate in Annual Register for 1807 (p113)*

1809 – Letter referred to in Court martial of Sir Home Popham in the Annual Register for March 1807

1840 – A version of the letter appears in 2^nd edition of Clarke and M’Arthur’s ‘Life of Admiral Lord Nelson’

1846 – Heavily redacted version of the letter in Nicolas ‘The Letters of Lord Nelson’ (Vol 6)

1901- Copy of doctored letter published in The Naval Miscellany Vol 1 pp438-9

2016 – Doctored copy of the letter (referenced from The Naval Miscellany) referred to in Chapter 5 of ‘The Royal Navy and the British Atlantic World c 1750-1820’ (Palgrave Macmillan 2016).   

22 August 2017 – Afua Hirsch accuses Nelson of being a ‘white supremacist’ in an article in The Guardian newspaper entitled ‘Toppling Statues? Here’s why Nelson’s Column should be next’. No reference is made to the letter in the article.

24 August 2017 – Oblique reference to content of letter in article by Max Hastings in the Daily Mail in response to Afua Hirsch’s allegations in The Guardian

December 2018 – The doctored version of letter referred to by Christer Petley in his article entitled ‘Nelson’s Dark Side’ published in the BBC’s History Magazine Christmas edition.

18 June 2020 – Doctored version of the letter referred to ‘Nelson on a Pedestal’ by Matthew Sheldon, Executive Director of Operations for the National Museum of the Royal Navy.

22 August 2020 – Letter referred to in The Eastern Daily Press article ‘Nelson Statue Vandalism Cost £2400 to Clean Up’

16 September 2020 – The doctored version of the letter features in Channel 5’s documentary ‘Nelson: Britain’s Great Naval Hero’

Updated March 2021

THE NELSON SOCIETY

     President: The Hon Peregrine Nelson Hood

Nelson and the Slave Trade: A Position Statement by The Nelson Society                         

Nelson and the Slave Trade: A Position Statement by The Nelson Society                         

INTRODUCTION

In the wake of the ‘Black Lives Matter’ (BLM) protests (June 2020) the issue as to whether Nelson was racist has again been raised. In consequence BLM have identified Nelson’s Column as a statue that should be looked at in light of Nelson’s perceived role in supporting the slave trade.  These concerns have mainly arisen from an article in the Guardian newspaper in 2017 that referred to Nelson as a ‘white supremacist’.  The article used a poor and provocative interpretation of events to serve a pre-determined narrative.  Indeed the article has gone against over 1,000 prior biographies of Nelson over a 200 year period, not one of which has ever accused Nelson of being pro-slavery, racist or even a white supremacist.  The Nelson Society is firmly of the view that there is no evidence at all to support the concerns of these allegations.

CONTEXT

During Nelson’s time Britain was a colonial and imperial power and the slave trade was an integral part of the economic, political and social fabric of the period and it was within this context that Nelson operated. The slave trade existed both before Nelson was born and after he died. The Royal Navy was an important instrument of the state, helping to protect Britain’s interests at home and abroad. It was this service that Nelson joined at the age of 12.

For much of the time of Nelson’s service in the Royal Navy the country was at war with the colonial powers of France and Spain. Nelson’s over-riding ethos was service to his country – he used the words ‘duty or service’ (to his king and country) frequently. His famous signal at Trafalgar ‘England Expects… ’ exhorted his men to do their duty and his last words were ‘Thank God I have done my Duty’.

In light of the conflict with Spain and France the Royal Navy was charged with protecting British interests overseas. The West Indies were a significant contributor to the wealth of the nation (essential to the war effort) and Nelson would see it as his duty to protect those interests.

NELSON’S ACTIONS

Nelson’s actions in no way support the notion that Nelson was overtly or privately racist or pro-slavery. There are many examples that support this notion and we highlight several below:

• Any West Indian slave escaping to a navy ship (including Nelson’s) were signed on, paid and treated the same as other crew members. At the end of their service they were discharged as free men
• In 1799 Nelson intervened to secure the release of twenty four North African slaves being held in Portuguese galleys off Palermo
• In 1802 when it was proposed that West Indian plantation slaves should be replaced by free, paid industrious Chinese workers Nelson supported the idea
• In 1803 Nelson rescued the Haitian General Joseph Chretien and his servant from the French. They asked if they could serve with Nelson, and Nelson recommended to the Admiralty that they be paid until they could be discharged and granted passage to Jamaica. The General’s mission was to end slavery, a fact of which Nelson was well aware. The general and his servant were well treated and paid.
• The Nelson family used to have a free black servant called Price. Nelson said of him he was ‘as good a man as ever lived’ and he suggested to Emma that she invite the elderly Price to live with them. In the event Price declined.

           CONTROVERSY

Much is made of a letter that Nelson penned in June 1805 to plantation owner Simon Taylor. The private letter to Taylor was published in 1807 by the anti-abolitionists, some eighteen months after Nelson’s death and therefore letter has been taken completely out of context.  Work undertaken by the Nelson Society clearly demonstrates that this letter was altered after Nelson’s death to suit the cause of the anti-abolitionists. (See the article ‘Nelson Letter a Forgery’ on this website). An examination of the letter shows the following: Nelson gives his support to the colonial system whilst also criticising Wilberforce and his allies.  Hence it is assumed Nelson supported the slave trade.  However the letter should be read in the context of the conflict Nelson was engaged in, and the state of the war at that point.  Nelson’s view can be understood as an expression of the necessity (in his view) to ensure Britain’s interests were not threatened or undermined.  In June 1805 when it was written Britain, at war with both France and Spain, was under imminent threat of invasion.  The survival of the country was reliant on Nelson catching up with Villeneuve’s fleet and at the point that the letter was penned Nelson was pursuing the French fleet across the Atlantic and back trying to bring them to battle.  Nelson was under huge pressure; therefore any proposal that might destabilise the national economy at this critical time had to be anathema to him (or to any commander charged with such responsibility).  With regards to his comments on Wilberforce Nelson was guilty of no more than relaying a commonly held view of the time that was tinged with suspicion of the sudden evangelism of the formerly dissolute Wilberforce.

AFTERMATH

Nelson’s victory at Trafalgar gave the Royal Navy control of the seas. After the abolition of slavery in Britain in 1807 the Navy vigorously applied the new law. The Navy captured over 1600 slave ships freeing some 150,000 slaves in the process. Had he lived Nelson would have seen it his duty to apply the law with his usual vigour.  Stripped down, Nelson was a sailor in the Royal Navy whose role simply was to defend the institutions of the state, not because he necessarily believed in them, but because it was his duty to do so.